Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
trids

Versioning

4 posts in this topic

First a big Thank You and Congratulations to Jon and all those involved with getting 3.1.0 out!

:lmao:

Next. As a frequent beta-updater, I sometimes find it difficult to be clear on whether or not the beta I'm on is the same as one being referred to in a discussion.

But this problem only arose with the 3.0.103 betas. I guess there is a good reason that a fourth level qualifier (eg 3.0.103.xxx)was implemented instead of continuing to increment the third level .. but I'd like to suggest/request that the entire version identification be reflected in the filename of the download on the beta site .. all four levels please, not just the first three.

This would make it much easier to keep up to date and ensure that discussions are relevant to the latest beta.

Thanks again to all the devs

o:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Did I notice that Jon started doing this when 3.0.103 became 3.1? I'm sure I saw downloads with like 3.1.0.14 or such in the file name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First a big Thank You and Congratulations to Jon and all those involved with getting 3.1.0 out!

:lmao:

Next. As a frequent beta-updater, I sometimes find it difficult to be clear on whether or not the beta I'm on is the same as one being referred to in a discussion.

But this problem only arose with the 3.0.103 betas. I guess there is a good reason that a fourth level qualifier (eg 3.0.103.xxx)was implemented instead of continuing to increment the third level .. but I'd like to suggest/request that the entire version identification be reflected in the filename of the download on the beta site .. all four levels please, not just the first three.

This would make it much easier to keep up to date and ensure that discussions are relevant to the latest beta.

Thanks again to all the devs

o:)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 4th field was added after a couple of us suggested it would ease confusion. Prior to that, there had been like 23523432 releases of just plain old "3.0.103" and unless you manually updated to the very latest file on the site, you didn't actually know that you had the latest build. Other than doing that, it was almost impossible to tell if you had the same build as somebody else. Now, since the build number is incremented, it's easy to tell which build you have and for others to tell as well.

That said, I agree with trids. I would like to see the fulll version number in the file names, Including the private source archives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0